9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (7) TMI 1129 - SC - Indian LawsPossession (allegedly) of assets disproportionate to known sources of income - offences punishable U/s 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (PC Act) - Validity of FIR Lodged by CBI - the Petitioner is aggrieved of second FIR being No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003. It is also clear that the Petitioner has assailed the said FIR on the ground that there was no direction by this Court in its order dated 18.09.2003 which could have empowered the CBI to lodge two FIRs. HELD THAT - the 'compilation', we are satisfied that this Court being the ultimate custodian of the fundamental rights did not issue any direction to the CBI to conduct a roving inquiry against the assets of the Petitioner commencing from 1995 to 2003 even though the Taj Heritage Corridor Project was conceived only in July, 2002 and an amount of ₹ 17 crores was released in August/September, 2002. The method adopted by the CBI is unwarranted and without jurisdiction. We are also satisfied that the CBI has proceeded without proper understanding of various orders dated 16.07.2003, 21.08.2003, 18.09.2003, 25.10.2003 and 07.08.2003 passed by this Court. We are also satisfied that there was no such direction relating to second FIR, namely, FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003.We are satisfied that there was no such finding or satisfaction recorded by this Court in the matter of disproportionate assets of the Petitioner on the basis of the status report dated 11.09.2003 and, in fact, the Petitioner was not a party before this Court in the case in question. From the perusal of those orders, we are also satisfied that there could not have been any material before this Court about the disproportionate assets case of the Petitioner beyond the Taj Corridor Project case and there was no such question or issue about disproportionate assets of the Petitioner. In view of the same, giving any direction to lodge FIR relating to disproportionate assets case did not arise. CBI is not justified in proceeding with the FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003. we hold that in the absence of any specific direction from this Court in the order dated 18.09.2003 or any subsequent orders, the CBI has exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003. The impugned FIR is without jurisdiction and any investigation pursuant thereto is illegal and liable to be quashed, accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003. 2. Scope of directions passed by the Supreme Court in the order dated 18.09.2003. 3. Requirement of State Government's consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act. 4. Legitimacy of CBI's actions in investigating disproportionate assets. 5. Role and rights of the intervener in the case. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003: The Supreme Court examined whether the CBI's FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003, lodged under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was beyond the scope of the Court's directions dated 18.09.2003. The Court noted that the FIR was filed without any specific direction from the Supreme Court to investigate the disproportionate assets of the Petitioner. The Court concluded that the CBI exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging the FIR, as the directions were confined to the Taj Corridor Project and did not extend to investigating the Petitioner's assets from 1995 to 2003. 2. Scope of Directions Passed by the Supreme Court in the Order Dated 18.09.2003: The Court scrutinized the orders dated 16.07.2003, 21.08.2003, and 11.09.2003, leading up to the order dated 18.09.2003. The directions were specifically related to the Taj Corridor Project, focusing on the alleged irregularities in the release of Rs. 17 crores. The Court emphasized that the scope of the order was limited to investigating the assets of the officers involved in the Taj Corridor Project and did not extend to a general investigation into the Petitioner's assets. The Court found no mention of a direction to lodge a second FIR regarding disproportionate assets. 3. Requirement of State Government's Consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act: The Court highlighted that Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, mandates obtaining the State Government's consent for the CBI to exercise its powers within the State's jurisdiction. In this case, the CBI did not obtain such consent before lodging the FIR and conducting the investigation into the Petitioner's assets. The absence of consent rendered the CBI's actions in violation of Section 6 of the DSPE Act, making the FIR and subsequent investigation invalid. 4. Legitimacy of CBI's Actions in Investigating Disproportionate Assets: The Court found that the CBI's investigation into the Petitioner's disproportionate assets was not justified, as it was not based on any direction from the Supreme Court. The Court reiterated that the investigation should have been confined to the Taj Corridor Project, as per the directions issued. The CBI's actions were deemed unwarranted and without jurisdiction, as there was no material before the Court to justify an investigation into the Petitioner's assets beyond the scope of the Taj Corridor Project. 5. Role and Rights of the Intervener in the Case: The intervener, Mr. Kamlesh Verma, filed an application claiming to be a social worker and sought to assist the Court. The Court noted that the intervener was not associated with the Taj Corridor matter when the relevant orders were passed. However, considering the intervener's ongoing writ petition in the Allahabad High Court challenging the Governor's refusal to grant sanction to prosecute the Petitioner, the Court allowed the intervention application to assist in the matter. The Court clarified that this allowance was specific to this case and should not be cited as a precedent. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the CBI exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003, as there was no specific direction from the Court to investigate the Petitioner's disproportionate assets. The FIR and subsequent investigation were deemed illegal and quashed. The writ petition was allowed, and the intervention application was accepted to assist the Court in this specific case.
|
